PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Born in Japan 1967.
Moved to CA in 1985.
Moved to NY in 1987.
BFA in Fine Arts from School of Visuals Arts, 1990.
Dedicated to doing all my creative activities online because I'm too lazy to do anything physically (and what's the point? Really).
Moved to CA in 1985.
Moved to NY in 1987.
BFA in Fine Arts from School of Visuals Arts, 1990.
Dedicated to doing all my creative activities online because I'm too lazy to do anything physically (and what's the point? Really).
RHIZOME ACTIVITIES
Money and the Medium
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2602597.ece
This is a good summary of what is happening in the music industry. I've always assumed that live performances were a promotional scheme to sell more albums, but I guess I was wrong (it was the opposite).
What is interesting about this is that, because of MP3, music became a form of digital art, and so it shares the same difficulty that digital art faces in terms of making money. Now musicians have to think about how they can make money from what they do, as if music was a form of New Media.
Many relatively famous New Media artists still have to supplement their income through their second jobs or teaching gigs, whereas many rather unknown painters and sculptors are comfortably making 6 figures. The medium, or the means of distribution, seems to have large influence on how much money you can make from it. This has always been true in history to some degree, but with the birth of computers and the Internet, it appears to be getting more pronounced (or is it just me who feel this way?). I think writers too face similar problems, even though at the moment, most people still prefer physical books over computer screens when it comes to reading long texts. It's just a matter of time that movies will face the same fate that music has.
Money appears to be in the markets where physical objects are required or desired, or in the markets where real-time human interaction is required or desired. In all other markets, money seems to be dissipating into the air we breathe.
-D
This is a good summary of what is happening in the music industry. I've always assumed that live performances were a promotional scheme to sell more albums, but I guess I was wrong (it was the opposite).
What is interesting about this is that, because of MP3, music became a form of digital art, and so it shares the same difficulty that digital art faces in terms of making money. Now musicians have to think about how they can make money from what they do, as if music was a form of New Media.
Many relatively famous New Media artists still have to supplement their income through their second jobs or teaching gigs, whereas many rather unknown painters and sculptors are comfortably making 6 figures. The medium, or the means of distribution, seems to have large influence on how much money you can make from it. This has always been true in history to some degree, but with the birth of computers and the Internet, it appears to be getting more pronounced (or is it just me who feel this way?). I think writers too face similar problems, even though at the moment, most people still prefer physical books over computer screens when it comes to reading long texts. It's just a matter of time that movies will face the same fate that music has.
Money appears to be in the markets where physical objects are required or desired, or in the markets where real-time human interaction is required or desired. In all other markets, money seems to be dissipating into the air we breathe.
-D
TasteMetrics
Hi All,
I have a new project that I would like you to check out and try out if you have nothing better to do. It's a web-based program that compares your own personal taste to those of others. There is no accounting for taste, but it's pretty clear when someone has a very different or a very similar taste from you. And this difference or similarity stays relatively consistent and predictable. So, I wanted to measure the degrees of differences and similarities. This is something I started back in 2001. I originally created it as a stand-alone application but now I put it on the web so anyone can use it to measure their differences to others, or to a specific person they know (assuming that both take the same survey.). Once you take a survey, it will tell you how similar or different you are from everyone else who took the survey. If you ask your friends to take the same survey, you would be able to compare yourself one-to-one with them. Here is the URL:
http://www.tastemetrics.com
If you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, or criticism, I would appreciate them.
Thank you.
Dyske
I have a new project that I would like you to check out and try out if you have nothing better to do. It's a web-based program that compares your own personal taste to those of others. There is no accounting for taste, but it's pretty clear when someone has a very different or a very similar taste from you. And this difference or similarity stays relatively consistent and predictable. So, I wanted to measure the degrees of differences and similarities. This is something I started back in 2001. I originally created it as a stand-alone application but now I put it on the web so anyone can use it to measure their differences to others, or to a specific person they know (assuming that both take the same survey.). Once you take a survey, it will tell you how similar or different you are from everyone else who took the survey. If you ask your friends to take the same survey, you would be able to compare yourself one-to-one with them. Here is the URL:
http://www.tastemetrics.com
If you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, or criticism, I would appreciate them.
Thank you.
Dyske
Re: Where is the Rhizome?
I might have argued this several years ago, but the specific characteristics associated with Rhizome RAW are the results of its technological architecture and its policies, which is basically anarchy. Being open to everything and anything does not create or foster diverse and open discussions. Anarchy is simply one of many organizational structures we can have, with its own specific results.
In anarchistic email lists, we often see the pattern of power law where something like the top 5% of members do over 90% of all the talking. And, as you would expect of any anarchistic organizations, what you see on the surface does not represent the majority views. In most anarchistic email lists, those who are most vocal dominate the list and set the course of discussions. Even if their opinions are a small minority, that’s what everyone sees, and naturally everyone comes to associate those opinions with the organization itself.
What is more influential than views and opinions is attitude or tone. Most of us are not capable of seeing arguments solely for their truth values. Emotional content in fact plays a bigger role in deciding to agree or disagree with someone. The small minority of vocal members not only sets the content of the list, but also sets the attitude and tone. This has a snowballing effect of attracting others who share similar attitudes and tones. Eventually, those who cannot relate to the attitudes and tones of the list would leave. The list becomes increasingly homogeneous in this manner, and eventually the remaining members get sick of each other since they are essentially looking at themselves in a mirror. This is expressed in Curt’s list of why’s:
“1. We've already argued about all there is to argue about, and we're tired of arguing about the same things.”
I personally do not like anarchistic structure for an online community. Since the Internet itself has the anarchistic structure, it seems natural to have one, but it can become useless for the same reason. Imagine in a big department store like Macys, a section where it sells everything and anything. Since having a variety of products is the idea of the department store itself, having a section with the same idea is useless. Each online community, I believe, should be more structured. Marisa said: “We can't be all things to all people.” True; trying to be all things to all people ends up serving no one.
A good interviewer would make the interviewee believe that, after a great interview with lots of interesting opinions and stories, he did it all by himself. Free flow of great ideas is usually not so “free”; it only has the facade of freedom. It is actually the invisible structure and control mechanism that lets the ideas flow in a useful and productive manner, which is what a great interviewer does. And this can be controlled with simple technical and/or presentational devices.
As New York Magazine noted once, the online discussion boards at UrbanBaby.com does not display user names. This can cause a lot of confusions because you have no idea who is saying what. But because of the total anonymity, people feel free to say whatever they have on their minds. Some mothers, for instance, started confessing their regrets for having kids. In this way, a simple thing, like the lack of user name, has a big effect on the content and the tone of an online community.
It would be interesting, for instance, to see what happens to Rhizome RAW if there was a simple and easy voting system for each comment posted. Suppose the system automatically kicks out members who get more than 10 lowest votes in a month. Or, it would automatically give more presentational significance to those members who are consistently voted high. I am not saying Rhizome should implement these ideas; I’m only curious as to what would happen if they did. How would it influence the attitudes, tones, and content of the discussion on RAW? It would be interesting to see because it would reflect better what the majority of Rhizome members are thinking and feeling.
People who are not vocal on RAW are not necessarily quiet because they are shy. I believe the number of people who are actually shy is as small as the number of people who are very vocal on the list. The vast majority of the people are more than capable of joining discussions, and offering interesting opinions and insights. What determines their participation is probably more about attitudes and tones than it is about the content.
In email lists where lively discussions still go on, it is usually because the lists are carefully moderated in some way. Discussions on blogs, for instance, are usually moderated and organized by the owners of the blogs. The topic of discussion is set with each post on a blog. This forces everyone to stay on topic, and has the effect of automatically categorizing all the comments. If the topic is interesting, the discussion could go on forever without digressing too far. Or, on popular blogs, discussions are often closed after a certain number of posts, so people do not start arguing about the same thing over and over. In this sense, discussions on blogs are more useful and interesting.
So, in my opinion, the reason why not much is going on within RAW is because its structure is too general and wide open. As the Internet grows in size, each site or community needs to become more specific. Again, the analogy to a department store would be helpful here. The bigger the department store gets, the more specific each section should be. Rhizome RAW simply hasn’t adjusted to that reality.
-Dyske
In anarchistic email lists, we often see the pattern of power law where something like the top 5% of members do over 90% of all the talking. And, as you would expect of any anarchistic organizations, what you see on the surface does not represent the majority views. In most anarchistic email lists, those who are most vocal dominate the list and set the course of discussions. Even if their opinions are a small minority, that’s what everyone sees, and naturally everyone comes to associate those opinions with the organization itself.
What is more influential than views and opinions is attitude or tone. Most of us are not capable of seeing arguments solely for their truth values. Emotional content in fact plays a bigger role in deciding to agree or disagree with someone. The small minority of vocal members not only sets the content of the list, but also sets the attitude and tone. This has a snowballing effect of attracting others who share similar attitudes and tones. Eventually, those who cannot relate to the attitudes and tones of the list would leave. The list becomes increasingly homogeneous in this manner, and eventually the remaining members get sick of each other since they are essentially looking at themselves in a mirror. This is expressed in Curt’s list of why’s:
“1. We've already argued about all there is to argue about, and we're tired of arguing about the same things.”
I personally do not like anarchistic structure for an online community. Since the Internet itself has the anarchistic structure, it seems natural to have one, but it can become useless for the same reason. Imagine in a big department store like Macys, a section where it sells everything and anything. Since having a variety of products is the idea of the department store itself, having a section with the same idea is useless. Each online community, I believe, should be more structured. Marisa said: “We can't be all things to all people.” True; trying to be all things to all people ends up serving no one.
A good interviewer would make the interviewee believe that, after a great interview with lots of interesting opinions and stories, he did it all by himself. Free flow of great ideas is usually not so “free”; it only has the facade of freedom. It is actually the invisible structure and control mechanism that lets the ideas flow in a useful and productive manner, which is what a great interviewer does. And this can be controlled with simple technical and/or presentational devices.
As New York Magazine noted once, the online discussion boards at UrbanBaby.com does not display user names. This can cause a lot of confusions because you have no idea who is saying what. But because of the total anonymity, people feel free to say whatever they have on their minds. Some mothers, for instance, started confessing their regrets for having kids. In this way, a simple thing, like the lack of user name, has a big effect on the content and the tone of an online community.
It would be interesting, for instance, to see what happens to Rhizome RAW if there was a simple and easy voting system for each comment posted. Suppose the system automatically kicks out members who get more than 10 lowest votes in a month. Or, it would automatically give more presentational significance to those members who are consistently voted high. I am not saying Rhizome should implement these ideas; I’m only curious as to what would happen if they did. How would it influence the attitudes, tones, and content of the discussion on RAW? It would be interesting to see because it would reflect better what the majority of Rhizome members are thinking and feeling.
People who are not vocal on RAW are not necessarily quiet because they are shy. I believe the number of people who are actually shy is as small as the number of people who are very vocal on the list. The vast majority of the people are more than capable of joining discussions, and offering interesting opinions and insights. What determines their participation is probably more about attitudes and tones than it is about the content.
In email lists where lively discussions still go on, it is usually because the lists are carefully moderated in some way. Discussions on blogs, for instance, are usually moderated and organized by the owners of the blogs. The topic of discussion is set with each post on a blog. This forces everyone to stay on topic, and has the effect of automatically categorizing all the comments. If the topic is interesting, the discussion could go on forever without digressing too far. Or, on popular blogs, discussions are often closed after a certain number of posts, so people do not start arguing about the same thing over and over. In this sense, discussions on blogs are more useful and interesting.
So, in my opinion, the reason why not much is going on within RAW is because its structure is too general and wide open. As the Internet grows in size, each site or community needs to become more specific. Again, the analogy to a department store would be helpful here. The bigger the department store gets, the more specific each section should be. Rhizome RAW simply hasn’t adjusted to that reality.
-Dyske
Re: Where the Rhizome went...
For the first time in a few years, I decided to read postings on RAW, and the first one I picked was this one where Patrick says:
"In addition, a lot of the Third Wave have families and careers now, and
doubly do not have the time to participate like they used to."
This is true in my case. I have a 2.5 year old daughter now, but the busy adjustment period is more-or-less over. I have a bit more time now. My wife and my daughter are now vacationing at some beach for 6 days. I don't like going outside of NYC, so for me being able to spend time by myself is a vacation.
-D
"In addition, a lot of the Third Wave have families and careers now, and
doubly do not have the time to participate like they used to."
This is true in my case. I have a 2.5 year old daughter now, but the busy adjustment period is more-or-less over. I have a bit more time now. My wife and my daughter are now vacationing at some beach for 6 days. I don't like going outside of NYC, so for me being able to spend time by myself is a vacation.
-D
How to Display Digital Artwork in a Gallery
Hi all,
I have a friend who needs to show her digital artwork in a gallery. As she consulted me about it, I realized that it is an interesting problem.
Now LCD monitors are quickly becoming the norm. They are no longer a novelty item that connotes future. I feel like this shift in public perception has happened just this year. The problem for cost-conscious artists is that they can no longer use CRT monitors to present their work in a gallery because they now have the connotation of being retro, or just-past. Unless your work is about being retro or just-past, they are inappropriate.
But on the other hand, LCD monitors are still quite expensive, especially large ones. On top of it, they do not withstand well the abuse of the public users who tend to poke their fingers at it. Most gallery shows last about a month. You cannot afford to sacrifice your own monitor for a month, unless you happen to be going on vacation at the same time your have a show. Unless you are Cory Archangel, you do not have shows every month to make it worthwhile to buy one specifically for exhibition purposes. Renting it for a month is quite expensive too.
So what do most artists do in this situation?
-Dyske
I have a friend who needs to show her digital artwork in a gallery. As she consulted me about it, I realized that it is an interesting problem.
Now LCD monitors are quickly becoming the norm. They are no longer a novelty item that connotes future. I feel like this shift in public perception has happened just this year. The problem for cost-conscious artists is that they can no longer use CRT monitors to present their work in a gallery because they now have the connotation of being retro, or just-past. Unless your work is about being retro or just-past, they are inappropriate.
But on the other hand, LCD monitors are still quite expensive, especially large ones. On top of it, they do not withstand well the abuse of the public users who tend to poke their fingers at it. Most gallery shows last about a month. You cannot afford to sacrifice your own monitor for a month, unless you happen to be going on vacation at the same time your have a show. Unless you are Cory Archangel, you do not have shows every month to make it worthwhile to buy one specifically for exhibition purposes. Renting it for a month is quite expensive too.
So what do most artists do in this situation?
-Dyske
